We performed a comparison between Digital.ai Agility and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It can generate reports showing a burndown chart, burnup chart, and the planned vs actual velocity."
"It allows my clients to have one central tool to manage their agile projects."
"For visualization capabilities, the automation capabilities make it possible to support the different personas. The features and capabilities are excellent and come with excellent support."
"Agility is highly flexible. It can do much more than what our client is doing with it. They use it in a defined way. Some at that company have a much broader knowledge of agile and SAFe, but they're given applications and a mandated way to work. We had to work within their parameters and provide an accurate transition so the data would be mapped and pushed through."
"With some of the other tools, you have to buy 20 different plugins to get to the same capability that comes with the basic Agility capability."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"The user interface can be improved by adding Save, Edit, Add, Cancel, and Return buttons to the popup windows that are displayed when you click on a child item."
"In my work as a contractor, it's always frustrating when a client has multiple software applications that don't talk to each other and they all perform the same function. That presents a huge challenge between their IT groups."
"Improve how to create and track releases. Currently, I have to create child projects."
"There is room for improvement in getting the analytics portion of the solution more integrated with the rest of it."
"The machine learning features are a new capability but could be improved. This is being worked by Digital.ai currently. Multicolor simulation, specifically, could be improved."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital.ai Agility is ranked 12th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 5 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Digital.ai Agility is rated 9.0, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Digital.ai Agility writes " A scalable, full-package solution with a tech support team that bends over backwards to help". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Digital.ai Agility is most compared with Jira, Jira Align, Rally Software, Microsoft Azure DevOps and TFS, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. See our Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.